The title of the documentary is Coal Country. It was released in 2009, and it was directed by Phylis Geller.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film documents the struggles coal mining towns and their citizens are facing (particularly in West Virginia). Even though coal mining provides a way of life for the whole community, the mining involves the devastating practices of mountain top removal. Coal companies like Massey Energy are masking the terrible environmental and human health effects by offering citizens like coal mining operators high wages of $50,000 a year, holding coal festivals, and paying for entertainment in the towns. By dominating these towns, there are no other employment opportunities in these West Virginian mining towns. Coal mining has become a way of life for the citizens, and they do not want to lose their livelihoods. Despite this mountain top removal is very risky, and it is causing the destruction of Appalachia. Human health is impacted as many residents have asthma and many develop lung cancer. Property values of homes in the areas have also plummeted. Residents are split over stopping mining. One on hand it is the only job in town, on the other hand it is making people sick and destroying their precious land. Some individuals began a crusade to put an end to this through protests and litigation suits. Joe Lovett, an attorney, filed lawsuits against mountain top removal policies. He also tried to get the Clean Water Act enforced. Unfortunately, he won some of the battles at the local level but the federal courts and some state courts sided in favor of the coal companies. Thus, the battle over mountain top removal continues.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out numerous sustainability problems that include corporate power, poor regulation enforcement, and environmental destruction. The power of companies like Massey Energy is quite strong. They have the money to lobby Congress to pass legislation in their favor. For example, Senator Byrd will not side against the coal companies since according to him they bring too many jobs to West Virginia. It also happens to be the case that these companies donate a lot of money to his political campaigns. Also, these companies have the money to hire the best lawyers to fight people like Joe Lovett. In West Virginia, they control the livelihood of most people. They are the only employer in town, it isn’t a coincidence they are found in the poorer areas of West Virginia. For most people in West Virginia, it is either flipping burgers or mining for coal. They also support entertainment activities for the citizens in town in the form of coal festivals and so on. This creates a sense of attachment of the residents to the coal company. Companies like Massey Energy love it when there is friction between those trying to organize to form unions and those who are against it since this friction usually results in no unions being formed.
Poor regulation enforcement is also an issue. Under law, coal companies are required to reclaim the land and attempt to bring it back to its original form. The problem with this is that reclamation never permanently restores the landscape back to its original form. Also, companies are not prohibited from polluting the waters and land. This allows coal slurry to flow down water sources. If the coal company is not mandated to do something, it does not do it. This now brings about the topic of environmental destruction. Coal mining has turned many parts of West Virginia into wasteland. Mountain tops have been reduced to 3 to 5 square miles of plateaus. The tops of mountains are flat and destitute. Instead of mountains, they appear to look like the Grand Canyon. This kills the biodiversity in the area. Reclaiming the land does not bring back all the biodiversity lost or the mountain top. The slurry from mining contaminates rivers, streams, and the aquifers. This is causing various health effects on the citizens.
A great example of the health effects was shown with the footage of Elisa Young. Ms. Young inherited her farmland in Ohio from her parents whom also inherited from their grandparents and so on. It was virtually inherited across multiple generations. Now, Elisa can’t even farm or raise animals due to the pollution and contamination from coal mining. Her neighbors are dying from various cancers such as lung cancer and others are developing asthma. Her community has one of the highest lung cancer rates in Ohio, and it is one of the worst places in our nation in terms of air quality. Also, many residents in West Virginia are finding coal dust on their cars and even all over their homes. Many citizens are also drinking contaminated water from the slurry that flows into their water supplies. No one even knows what is in their water supplies. These effects are seen everywhere mountaintop removal is practiced.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Two parts out really stuck out to me in the film. The first part was when Don Blakenship, the CEO of Massey Energy, told a cameraman that “If you’re going to start taking pictures of me, you’re liable to get shot.” This showed just how ruthless he really was. How can he possibly care about his employees or the citizens of West Virginia if he acts like this? This to me sounded like a man motivated solely by profits. Further backing up this notion was the segment of the film talking about how Massey Energy benefits when there is friction between those trying to form a union and those workers hired to work while the other workers are absent. These workers honk and showcase their money as they exit their jobs. The film mentioned how the executives love this and laugh all the way to the bank. The second convincing part was when the old women were showing the video of the coal dust on their cars and homes. The video clip showed such a large amount of dust that the cars looked black. Even more devastating was the part of the film when they talked about their homes now only being worth $30,000. This to me shows that the coal industry is doing more harm than good for West Virginia.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not convinced with Randall Maggard, the manager at a local coal company. He kept trying to show that reclamation was very promising, and that it restored the land. He even said the land would be good for real estate and parks. The problem with all of this is the fact that he loves his job, and he has a vested interested in it. This is likely the reason he is such an advocate of mining. Also, he only showed the most promising of the reclaimed sites. The fact remains that mountain top removal permanently destroys mountain tops, and nothing will bring back the ecosystem there or the exact vegetation that was destroyed. Another unconvincing part of the film for me was the portion on clean coal and how lawmakers advocated it. Although carbon sequestration puts emissions into the ground, what will happen if they can come up some day? No one knows what exactly can happen yet. It is still an early science that has not been proven.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film was definitely not the best for younger viewers. It contained a lot of complex legal issues and scientific principles. I feel it is best for people around high school age or older that are not aware of mountain top removal. The film covered the practice in depth, so anyone familiar with the process would have already known most of the issues covered.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe the film should have gone into the alternatives to mountain top removal. It really didn’t mention if there were any other options that were feasible to mine coal. More information on reclamation would have been good as well. I feel like they only showed some of the better sites, but more of the worst possible case scenarios. This might have been biased. What happens after reclamation? Also, more information on the effects that coal mining has on biodiversity and animals in the area would have been good to mention as well.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film didn’t really go into many solutions for coal mining. Coal is still powering America, so we can’t just move away from it right away. The film seemed to have stressed court battles at the local level, but seemed to down play them by showing that the coal companies won out. I believe the film still wants people to pursue these battles because with enough support, courts may have to side against coal mining. The film heavily focused on the grassroots protests. These seem promising today due to the power of social media and social networking. This reminds me of the Iranian protests. Tweets from Iran brought so much attention that major news outlets in the United States carried the story. Maybe with enough public support, the public can win out. Finally, regulation is most likely needed. Coal companies seem so motivated by profit that they will not act on their own to promote sustainable environmental practices. They need to be forced to act in a more sustainable manner.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I decided to have a look to see what our current administration in the White House has to say about carbon sequestration. It turns out that the administration views this technology to be promising. From what I found, most environmental groups are very skeptical of it and tend to dismiss it. In fact, the Department of Energy had this to say: “In fact, even under the most optimistic scenarios for energy efficiency gains and the greater use of low- or no-carbon fuels, sequestration will likely be essential if the world is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at acceptable levels.” It looks like the Obama administration has made some progress on energy policy, but the energy companies still have a tight lock on the White House.
I also wanted to see if the protestors have seen any progress. It turns out that they have. In April 2009, the EPA had issued three objections to mountain top removal permits. One of these mines was Massey’s mined in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The EPA seems to be looking into the impact of these mines on water quality. Hopefully, more of these objections happen. It is at least a step in the right direction.
Annotation #9, 11/12/10
Coal Country
1. Title, director and release year?
The title of the documentary is Coal Country. It was released in 2009, and it was directed by Phylis Geller.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film documents the struggles coal mining towns and their citizens are facing (particularly in West Virginia). Even though coal mining provides a way of life for the whole community, the mining involves the devastating practices of mountain top removal. Coal companies like Massey Energy are masking the terrible environmental and human health effects by offering citizens like coal mining operators high wages of $50,000 a year, holding coal festivals, and paying for entertainment in the towns. By dominating these towns, there are no other employment opportunities in these West Virginian mining towns. Coal mining has become a way of life for the citizens, and they do not want to lose their livelihoods. Despite this mountain top removal is very risky, and it is causing the destruction of Appalachia. Human health is impacted as many residents have asthma and many develop lung cancer. Property values of homes in the areas have also plummeted. Residents are split over stopping mining. One on hand it is the only job in town, on the other hand it is making people sick and destroying their precious land. Some individuals began a crusade to put an end to this through protests and litigation suits. Joe Lovett, an attorney, filed lawsuits against mountain top removal policies. He also tried to get the Clean Water Act enforced. Unfortunately, he won some of the battles at the local level but the federal courts and some state courts sided in favor of the coal companies. Thus, the battle over mountain top removal continues.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out numerous sustainability problems that include corporate power, poor regulation enforcement, and environmental destruction. The power of companies like Massey Energy is quite strong. They have the money to lobby Congress to pass legislation in their favor. For example, Senator Byrd will not side against the coal companies since according to him they bring too many jobs to West Virginia. It also happens to be the case that these companies donate a lot of money to his political campaigns. Also, these companies have the money to hire the best lawyers to fight people like Joe Lovett. In West Virginia, they control the livelihood of most people. They are the only employer in town, it isn’t a coincidence they are found in the poorer areas of West Virginia. For most people in West Virginia, it is either flipping burgers or mining for coal. They also support entertainment activities for the citizens in town in the form of coal festivals and so on. This creates a sense of attachment of the residents to the coal company. Companies like Massey Energy love it when there is friction between those trying to organize to form unions and those who are against it since this friction usually results in no unions being formed.
Poor regulation enforcement is also an issue. Under law, coal companies are required to reclaim the land and attempt to bring it back to its original form. The problem with this is that reclamation never permanently restores the landscape back to its original form. Also, companies are not prohibited from polluting the waters and land. This allows coal slurry to flow down water sources. If the coal company is not mandated to do something, it does not do it. This now brings about the topic of environmental destruction.
Coal mining has turned many parts of West Virginia into wasteland. Mountain tops have been reduced to 3 to 5 square miles of plateaus. The tops of mountains are flat and destitute. Instead of mountains, they appear to look like the Grand Canyon. This kills the biodiversity in the area. Reclaiming the land does not bring back all the biodiversity lost or the mountain top. The slurry from mining contaminates rivers, streams, and the aquifers. This is causing various health effects on the citizens.
A great example of the health effects was shown with the footage of Elisa Young. Ms. Young inherited her farmland in Ohio from her parents whom also inherited from their grandparents and so on. It was virtually inherited across multiple generations. Now, Elisa can’t even farm or raise animals due to the pollution and contamination from coal mining. Her neighbors are dying from various cancers such as lung cancer and others are developing asthma. Her community has one of the highest lung cancer rates in Ohio, and it is one of the worst places in our nation in terms of air quality. Also, many residents in West Virginia are finding coal dust on their cars and even all over their homes. Many citizens are also drinking contaminated water from the slurry that flows into their water supplies. No one even knows what is in their water supplies. These effects are seen everywhere mountaintop removal is practiced.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Two parts out really stuck out to me in the film. The first part was when Don Blakenship, the CEO of Massey Energy, told a cameraman that “If you’re going to start taking pictures of me, you’re liable to get shot.” This showed just how ruthless he really was. How can he possibly care about his employees or the citizens of West Virginia if he acts like this? This to me sounded like a man motivated solely by profits. Further backing up this notion was the segment of the film talking about how Massey Energy benefits when there is friction between those trying to form a union and those workers hired to work while the other workers are absent. These workers honk and showcase their money as they exit their jobs. The film mentioned how the executives love this and laugh all the way to the bank. The second convincing part was when the old women were showing the video of the coal dust on their cars and homes. The video clip showed such a large amount of dust that the cars looked black. Even more devastating was the part of the film when they talked about their homes now only being worth $30,000. This to me shows that the coal industry is doing more harm than good for West Virginia.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not convinced with Randall Maggard, the manager at a local coal company. He kept trying to show that reclamation was very promising, and that it restored the land. He even said the land would be good for real estate and parks. The problem with all of this is the fact that he loves his job, and he has a vested interested in it. This is likely the reason he is such an advocate of mining. Also, he only showed the most promising of the reclaimed sites. The fact remains that mountain top removal permanently destroys mountain tops, and nothing will bring back the ecosystem there or the exact vegetation that was destroyed. Another unconvincing part of the film for me was the portion on clean coal and how lawmakers advocated it. Although carbon sequestration puts emissions into the ground, what will happen if they can come up some day? No one knows what exactly can happen yet. It is still an early science that has not been proven.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film was definitely not the best for younger viewers. It contained a lot of complex legal issues and scientific principles. I feel it is best for people around high school age or older that are not aware of mountain top removal. The film covered the practice in depth, so anyone familiar with the process would have already known most of the issues covered.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe the film should have gone into the alternatives to mountain top removal. It really didn’t mention if there were any other options that were feasible to mine coal. More information on reclamation would have been good as well. I feel like they only showed some of the better sites, but more of the worst possible case scenarios. This might have been biased. What happens after reclamation? Also, more information on the effects that coal mining has on biodiversity and animals in the area would have been good to mention as well.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film didn’t really go into many solutions for coal mining. Coal is still powering America, so we can’t just move away from it right away. The film seemed to have stressed court battles at the local level, but seemed to down play them by showing that the coal companies won out. I believe the film still wants people to pursue these battles because with enough support, courts may have to side against coal mining. The film heavily focused on the grassroots protests. These seem promising today due to the power of social media and social networking. This reminds me of the Iranian protests. Tweets from Iran brought so much attention that major news outlets in the United States carried the story. Maybe with enough public support, the public can win out. Finally, regulation is most likely needed. Coal companies seem so motivated by profit that they will not act on their own to promote sustainable environmental practices. They need to be forced to act in a more sustainable manner.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I decided to have a look to see what our current administration in the White House has to say about carbon sequestration. It turns out that the administration views this technology to be promising. From what I found, most environmental groups are very skeptical of it and tend to dismiss it. In fact, the Department of Energy had this to say: “In fact, even under the most optimistic scenarios for energy efficiency gains and the greater use of low- or no-carbon fuels, sequestration will likely be essential if the world is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at acceptable levels.” It looks like the Obama administration has made some progress on energy policy, but the energy companies still have a tight lock on the White House.
http://www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm
I also wanted to see if the protestors have seen any progress. It turns out that they have. In April 2009, the EPA had issued three objections to mountain top removal permits. One of these mines was Massey’s mined in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The EPA seems to be looking into the impact of these mines on water quality. Hopefully, more of these objections happen. It is at least a step in the right direction.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Massey_Energy